The use of visible and near-infrared (NIR) light in clinical practice is growing rapidly. Compounds absorbing or emitting in the visible or NIR, or long-wavelength (UV-A, >350 nm) region of the electromagnetic spectrum are potentially useful for optical tomographic imaging, endoscopic visualization, and phototherapy. However, a major advantage of biomedical optics lies in its therapeutic potential. Phototherapy has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of various surface lesions, both external and internal. Its efficacy is akin to radiotherapy, but it advantageously lacks the harmful radiotoxicity to critical non-target organs.
Phototherapy has been in existence for many centuries and has been used to treat various skin surface ailments. As early as 1400 B.C. in India, plant extracts (psoralens), in combination with sunlight, were used to treat vitiligo. In 1903, Von Tappeiner and Jesionek used eosin as a photosensitizer for treating skin cancer, lupus of the skin, and condylomata of female genitalia. Over the years, the combination of psoralens and ultraviolet A (low-energy) radiation has been used to treat a wide variety of dermatological diseases and manifestations including psoriasis, parapsoriasis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, eczema, vitiligo, areata, and neonatal bilirubinemia. Although the potential of cancer phototherapy has been recognized since the early 1900's, systematic studies to demonstrate safety and efficacy began only in 1967 with the treatment of breast carcinoma. In 1975, Dougherty et al. conclusively established that long-term cure is possible with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Currently, phototherapeutic methods are also being investigated for the treatment of some cardiovascular disorders such as atherosclerosis and vascular restenosis, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and for the treatment of some inflammatory diseases such as Chron's disease.
Phototherapeutic procedures require photosensitizers (i.e. chromophores) having high absorptivity. These compounds should preferably be chemically inert, and become activated only upon irradiation with light of an appropriate wavelength. Selective tissue injury can be induced with light when photosensitizers bind to the target tissues, either directly or through attachment to a bioactive carrier. Furthermore, if the photosensitizer is also a chemotherapeutic agent (e.g., anthracycline antitumor agents), then an enhanced therapeutic effect can be attained. The key requirements for the design of effective phototherapeutic agents are: (a) large molar extinction coefficients, (b) long triplet lifetimes, (c) high yields of singlet oxygen and/or other reactive intermediates, viz., free radicals, nitrenes, carbenes, or open-shell ionic species such as cabonium ions and the like, (d) efficient energy or electron transfer to cellular components, (e) low tendency to form aggregation in an aqueous milieu, (f) efficient and selective targeting of lesions, (g) rapid clearance from the blood and non-target tissues, (h) low systemic toxicity, and (i) lack of mutagenicity.
Photosensitizers operate via two distinct mechanisms, termed Types 1 and 2. The type 1 mechanism is shown in the following scheme:hv SENSITIZER→(SENSITIZER)*(SENSITIZER)*+TISSUE→TISSUE DAMAGEType 1 mechanisms involve direct energy or electron transfer from the photosensitizer to the cellular components thereby causing cell death. Type 2 mechanisms involve two distinct steps, as shown in the following scheme:hv SENSITIZER→(SENSITIZER)*(SENSITIZER)*+3O2(Triplet Oxygen)→1O2(Singlet Oxygen)1O2(Singlet Oxygen)+TISSUE→TISSUE DAMAGE
The biological basis of tissue injury brought about by tumor phototherapeutic agents has been the subject of intensive study. Various biochemical mechanisms for tissue damage have been postulated even though the type and number of photosensitizers employed in these studies are relatively small. These biochemical mechanisms are as follows: a) cancer cells upregulate the expression of low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors, and photodynamic therapy (PDT) agents bind to LDL and albumin selectively; (b) porphyrin-like substances are selectively taken up by proliferative neovasculature; (c) tumors often contain increased number of lipid bodies and are thus able to bind to hydrophobic photosensitizers; (d) a combination of “leaky” tumor vasculature and reduced lymphatic drainage causes porphyrin accumulation; (e) tumor cells may have increased capabilities for phagocytosis or pinocytosis of porphyrin aggregates; (f) tumor associated macrophages may be largely responsible for the concentration of photosensitizers in tumors; and (g) cancer cells may undergo apoptosis induced by photosensitizers. Among these mechanisms, (f) and (g) are the most general and, of these two alternatives, there is a general consensus that (f) is the most likely mechanism by which the phototherapeutic effect of porphyrin-like compounds is induced.
Most of the currently known photosensitizers are commonly referred to as photodynamic therapy (PDT) agents and operate via the Type 2 mechanism. For example, Photofrin II (a hematoporphyrin derivative) has been recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of bladder, esophageal, and late-stage lung cancers. However, Photofrin II has been shown to have several drawbacks: a low molar absorptivity (ε=3000 M−1), a low singlet oxygen quantum yield (φ=0.1), chemical heterogeneity, aggregation, and prolonged cutaneous photosensitivity. Hence, there has been considerable effort in developing safer and more effective photosensitizers for PDT which exhibit improved light absorbance properties, better clearance, and decreased skin photosensitivity compared to Photofrin II. These include monomeric porphyrin derivatives, corrins, cyanines, phthalocyanines, phenothiazines, rhodamines, hypocrellins, and the like. However, these phototherapeutic agents also mainly operate via the Type 2 mechanism.
Surprisingly, there has not been much attention directed at developing Type 1 phototherapeutic agents, despite the fact that the Type 1 mechanism appears to be inherently more efficient than the Type 2 mechanism. First, unlike Type 2, Type 1 photosensitizers do not require oxygen for causing cellular injury. Second, the Type 1 mechanism involves two steps (photoexcitation and direct energy transfer), whereas the Type 2 mechanism involves three steps (photoexcitation, singlet oxygen generation, and energy transfer). Furthermore, certain tumors have hypoxic regions, which renders the Type 2 mechanism ineffective. However, in spite of the drawbacks associated with the Type 2 mechanism, only a small number of compounds have been developed that operate through the Type 1 mechanism, e.g. anthracyline antitumor agents.
Thus, there is a need to develop effective phototherapeutic agents. Phototherapeutic efficacy can be substantially improved if both Type 1 and Type 2 units are integrated into a single composition. This can be accomplished using three types of formulations: (a) homogeneous mixtures of Type 1 or Type 2 agents alone, (b) heterogeneous mixtures of Type 1 and Type 2 agents, or (c) a single molecular entity containing both Type 1 and Type 2 functionalities.